There is no mechanism defined that explains how or why CO2 would lead temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age.

There is no mechanism defined to explain how or why high levels of CO2 would trigger an ice age.

The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can only result in warming, there is no mechanism by which it can result in cooling. CO2 can only trap outgoing radiation, that is it.

The confidence of the climate science “consensus” increased as the climate models increasingly deviated from observations.

100% of IPCC Climate Models overestimated the expected increase in global temperatures, 100%. A 100% overestimation rate involving that many models represent a systemic bias, not a random error.

The climate models assume a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. That relationship does not exist and will be covered in a later smoking gun.

Real science relies on the scientific method, and reaches a conclusion through falsification (rejecting the null), experimentation, data collection, data analysis and reproduciblity. Climate “science” relies on none of the classical scientific practices, and relies on computer models, peer review and consensus. Albert Einstein isn’t remembered because he agreed with the “consensus,” he is remembered because he shattered the existing consensus.

The extreme failure of the IPCC Climate Models to accurately model global temperatures means that the IPCC Modelers failed to include significant variables, failed to properly model CO2 or both. Regardless of which is true, the IPCC has failed on an epic scale to make the case that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming.

How can any real “science” have a “consensus” on something that they can’t even remotely model, and whose conclusions aren’t supported by empirical evidence/natural observation? Additionally, all these models passed “peer review,” and helped solidify the “consensus.”

If this “science” is truly “settled” why are there so many different models with widely different results? The only thing that all the models seem to agree upon is that they are all wrong. I imagine that is because the most significant factors used in these models is CO2. To properly cure an illness, one must first properly diagnose it. Prescribing eyeglasses for headaches caused by a brain tumor will only lead to the death of the patient. Climate “scientists” can model CO2 and temperature all they want, the models will never be accurate.

Smoking Gun #4: There simply isn’t enough Anthropocentric CO2 to make a difference

Talking Points:

OSU Stadium holds 100,000 Buckeye Fans and atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm. If every Buckeye Fan represents one atmospheric molecule, then 40 Buckeye Fans would represent atmospheric CO2. Man however is not responsible for all the atmospheric CO2, and is responsible for at most 15 of those 40 molecules of CO2. Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is the equivalent of 15 Buckeye Fans in OSU Stadium.

CO2 is a trace gas at 400 ppm, and its contribution to global warming is to trap a very narrow band of outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. More on this topic is covered in a later smoking gun.

Unfortunately, simple experiments to demonstrate even the basics of this “science” haven’t been properly run or even tried. What efforts have been attempted are complete jokes from the perspective of real science. Anthony Watts shows no mercy when he “peer reviews” Al Gore’s and Bill Nye’s effort to demonstrate the GHG effect of CO2. It is truly alarming how such foundational figures can’t demonstrate even the basics of the “science” that they have manufactured and promoted at great tax-payer expense.

Does it seem plausible that “thermalizing” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can make a material difference upon the remaining 2,499? Especially when its energy if consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius?

Smoking Gun #5: Water Vapor is by far the most significant Green House Gas (GHG)

When discussing global warming with a liberal, be sure to always tie things back to how CO2 could be the cause. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by trapping outgoing radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns.

Talking Points:

Incoming visible radiation has a wavelength between 0.4 and 0.7 microns and is consistent with a black body with a temperature around 5,200 degrees C (the Sun). CO2 is transparent to these wavelengths. (The importance of this will be addressed in a later Smoking Gun)

CO2’s absorbs between 13 and 18 microns, with a peak near 15 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. CO2’s signature would be to cause warming in Antarctica, which is addressed in a later Smoking Gun.

H2O largely absorbs the same IR spectrum as CO2, and is at much higher concentrations in the atmosphere. H2O IR absorption usually makes CO2 contribution to warming inconsequential.

CO2 has changed from 0.0003 to 0.0004 over the past 100 years and absorbs a very very very small % of the outgoing radiation. H2O can change from 0.001 to 0.04 in a day and absorbs a vast majority of the outgoing IR spectrum. Neither H20 or CO2 have ever caused catastrophic warming of the globe.

Given that the GHG effect only slows cooling, and can never actually “warm” the atmosphere, the dynamics of the GHG effect is to put in a temperature floor. If you notice from the above graphic, as the earth warms, it enters what is called an “atmospheric window” where little energy is trapped. As the earth cools, more and more of the outgoing wavelengths are trapped (note the near solid black to the right of 13 microns)

Smoking Gun #6: Antarctica isn’t warming

If there is anyplace on earth that is a natural control for the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 it is Antarctica. Antarctica’s average winter temperature is -60 degrees Celsius which is close to the peak absorption of CO2 of -80 degree Celsius. Most importantly however is that the Antarctica air is very very very dry, so there is no impact from water vapor. The only significant GHG in the South Pole Troposphere is CO2.

Ground measurements show no South Pole warming over the past 59 years. During that time CO2 increased from 315 ppm to 405 ppm.

Increasing CO2 nearly 30% had no impact on temperatures in the region most likely to be impacted by an increase if CO2.

The North Pole is not a “control” for CO2 because its temperature is largely influenced by ocean currents. BTW, an ice free North Pole is nothing new or anything to be alarmed about. The graphic is of the USS Skate SSN-578.

Once again, when discussing CO2 caused climate change or global warming, the question that needs to be asked is how does CO2 cause the observation. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is to absorb IR radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns, that is it. CO2 can only cause warming by “trapping” outgoing radiation.

The oceans hold over 1,000x more energy than the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough energy in the entire atmosphere to warm the oceans. The oceans are warmed by incoming radiation and geothermal sources.

Warming oceans also outgas CO2 into the atmosphere. That is why CO2 lags temperature. It takes time to warm the oceans, and as the oceans warm they release CO2. That is also why CO2 falls during ice ages. Cold water absorbs more CO2. This is due to Henry’s law and can be observed by warming a glass of Coke.

The fact that the oceans are warming is evidence of more incoming high energy visible radiation reaching the earth’s surface, not evidence of CO2 trapping outgoing low energy IR.

Climate models almost exclusively focus on CO2 levels and ignore incoming high energy visible radiation and atmospheric H20 levels which likely explains why they are so inaccurate.

What is warming the oceans is also most likely what is warming the atmosphere.

Either there are two distinct phenomena occurring, one caused by man and one caused by nature, or there is only one natural phenomenon causing both (which has been the case throughout all of history). Either something natural is warming the oceans and man’s CO2 is warming the atmosphere, or the same natural cause is warming both the oceans and the atmosphere above it.

Atmospheric CO2 and Atmospheric Temperatures simply aren’t correlated, and their certainly isn’t the linear relationship that exists in the IPCC Models.

In reality, atmospheric temperatures follow the ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2. Ocean temperatures are dependent upon the amount of incoming solar radiation that reaches them combined with ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO/El Nino/El Nina) and others. The balance of incoming and outgoing radiation is why the atmospheric temperature forms spikes and steps instead of a smooth linear increase.

The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is highly correlated with atmospheric temperatures, which are highly correlated with ocean temperatures and cycles.

Man’s production of CO2 can not explain the large variation is either the atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric temperatures. Ocean temperatures can explain both.

There is no mechanism by which CO2 would allow global temperatures to cool, CO2 only increases, and it only absorbs more and more energy. CO2 can’t explain the large rapid coolings which frequently occur.

Smoking Gun #10: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW

Once again, when discussing AGW you always have to tie the observation back to CO2, and its lone mechanism to affect climate change through absorbing long-wave IR between 13 and 18 microns. CO2 traps outgoing radiation from an already warmed earth, CO2 and IR doesn’t warm the earth. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible and UV radiation.

Talking Points:

Daytime temperatures are determined by the amount of incoming radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

CO2 traps outgoing radiation, record high temperatures require new energy to be added to the system. CO2 does not add energy to the system.

If AGW and CO2 was the true cause of the warming, you would be able to fry an egg on a hot day in the shade of a tree using only the back radiation from the atmosphere.

True evidence of AGW and CO2 caused warming would be that the spread between day and night temperatures would be narrowing in the very dry deserts. I’ve found no evidence of that happening, in fact the South Pole proves otherwise.

The fact that record daytime temperatures are being set is evidence that more energy is being added to the system. That alone can explain the warming, and CO2 has nothing to do with it.

Smoking Gun #11: The Scientific Method is Ignored, The Null is not Rejected

Classical science is done through the “Scientific Method.” An observation is made, a hypothesis is formed, experiments are designed, data is collected, the data is analyzed and the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected. In most fields of science the “null hypothesis” is the status quo or the accepted explanation. If in that rare case the null hypothesis is in fact rejected, the research is published and others will rush to “replicate” the experiments to validate the findings. True science is based upon skepticism and the “belief in the ignorance of experts.” Science progresses through falcification, over-turning the apple cart, proving the experts wrong, angering one’s “peers” and defying the “consensus.” Classical science is not done by following the bandwagon, agreeing with the consensus and being welcomed, accepted and celebrated by like-minded “peers.” Real science is done by proclaiming that “the earth is not flat dammit, and I’m going to prove it, and I don’t care what anyone else thinks.” How then would the scientific method be applied to the field of climate science? An observation is made that both temperatures and CO2 have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial age. A hypothesis is made that man-made CO2 must be causing the increase in temperatures, the commonly accepted/status quo belief is that climate change is natural. Experiments would be designed and data would be collected and then analyzed. For this smoking gun we will ignore the design experiments part because the field of climate science doesn’t rely on experiments, it is almost completely dependent upon data samples and computer models. I’ll address some experiments in a later smoking gun, this smoking gun will focus on the ice core data to determine if the temperature variation during the period when man has been producing CO2 (the past 150 and 50 years) is statistically different from the previous 12,000 years of the Holocene.

Talking Points:

Using the scientific method and applying it to the available ice core data, the null hypothesis that climate change is natural IS NOT REJECTED.

I have yet to find a single ice core data set demonstrating that current temperatures are at a peak for the Holocene. It is important to note that when NASA/NOAA, the Main Stream Media or Al Gore report that “we are experiencing the hottest year on record,” they are referring only to the past 156 years of instrumental records, not the ice core data or the entire Holocene. Those data set begin right when an unusually cold period called the “Little Ice Age” was ending. Much of the warming since 1860 is nothing more than the earth rebounding from an unusually cold period.

The main data sources used to support the AGW Theory are ground level surface and ocean thermometers. There are all sorts of problems with this approach such as the “Urban Heat Island Effect,” and the non-transparent process of “adjustments.” Those issues aside, once again, the warming has to be tied to CO2 and trapping outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Fortunately, NASA has a program to define and answer many climate-related questions. MODTRAN is a wonderful tool to use when discussing global warming with a liberal, it will save you countless headaches.

Talking Points:

Looking down from 1 km (the atmospheric layer where all thermometers are located) the Upward IR Flux when CO2 if 400 ppm is 407.572 W/M^2.

According to MODTRAN, doubling CO2 has no measurable impact on the energy balance is the lower 1 km of the atmosphere that contains all the ground/surface/ocean temperature measurements. The net change to the energy balance is 0.000 W/M^2.

Adding a simple stratus cloud base will change it to 396.896 W/M^2, in other words, when clouds and water vapor are considered, CO2 becomes irrelevant.

For the entire atmosphere (looking down from 70 km), changing CO2 from pre-industrial 280 ppm to the current 400 ppm changed the Upward IR Flux from 282.600 to 280.999 W/M^2, or less than 2 W/M^2 throughout the entire atmosphere. A simple cloud layer alters the balance by over 10 W/M^2.

The data adjustments aren’t similar to adjustments for random errors, where the adjustments are also random in nature. Temperature “adjustments” almost universally increase the slope of the temperature graph, lowering distal and elevating proximal data. The result is to suspiciously make the temperature increase more linear and in line with the CO2 increase. This issue will be addressed in a later smoking gun.

One of the most damning smoking guns is that the entire field of climate “science” appears to believe that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The IPCC models focus exclusively on CO2, and the relationship they model is a simple linear regression. If you try to model a logarithmic relationship as linear you can be 100% certain that the predicted value will overestimate the actual observation and that the error will grow over time. That is exactly what has happened with 100% of the IPCC Models, 100%.

Talking Points:

The vast majority of the heat-trapping capability of CO2 occurred as it increased from 0 ppm to the pre-industrial level of 280 pp. The Downward Forcing changed from 230 to 258 W/M^2, an increase of 28 W/M^2.

Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm increased the Downward Forcing from 258 to 259 W/M^2, an increase of 1 W/M^2.

Doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would increase the Downward Forcing from 259 to 263 W/M^2, an increase of 4 W/M^2.

That additional energy is dispersed throughout the entire 70 km of the atmospherics.

The best analogy to explain this concept is painting a window. The first coat of paint blocks out a lot of light, but each additional coat blocks less and less light. In economics, it is called “the law of diminishing returns” and the example is always a thirsty party goer that really enjoys his first beer, but by his 20th beer the enjoyment per beer has been greatly reduced.

Even though thermometer data was available, and in fact used by NASA and NOAA in their global temperature reconstructions, Michael Mann did not include instrumental data until 1902. Its addition dramatically altered the trend of the chart. Proxy data was included until 1980, and once discontinued the trend of the chart was dramatically altered again.

The Hockey Stick shows a full 1.1 degree Celsius increase between 1900 and its publication in 1999. NASA’s global temperature chart shows an increase of about one half that value at 0.6 degree Celsius.

Smoking Gun #16: The rate of change in the Sea level is not increasing (2nd derivative)

If in fact, temperatures are increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers should be melting at an increasing rate and therefore sea levels should be increasing at an increasing rate. They aren’t, in fact, the most recent data shows that the rate of increase has been DECREASING since 2004.

It is far more likely that we will experience sea level decreasing ice age long before Manhattan gets flooded.

James Hansen predicts a sea level rise of 2 to 5 meters over the next 84 years, or 24 to 60 mm/yr. During the ending of the recent ice age, sea level increased 100 m over 6,000 years at a rate of 17 mm/yr, and that was melting mile high ice over North America. NASA’s James Hansen in his “peer reviewed” paper claims sea level we will increase at a rate higher than what existed at the end of the ice age. Does that even seem remotely possible considering there are far fewer glaciers to melt and the actual rate of sea level increase has been DECREASING?

Smoking Gun #17: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.

Talking Points:

Most anthropogenic CO2 was produced post-WWII.

Temperatures increased 0.6 degree Celsius between 1910 and 1945, before most anthropogenic CO2 was produced. 0.6 degrees over 35 years.

Temperatures remained flat between 1940 and 1980, even though CO2 increased.

Another documentary “Iron Mountain; Blue Print to Tyranny” was another documentary, but made before the Global Warming movement. It highlights the MO used by left-wing politicians to gain control and power.

With a population of 320 million, $42 billion could give every American $131/yr.

At $500,000/mile, $42 billion could paive 82,000 miles of road/year.

The same argument can be applied to buying up and preserving the rainforest, building endangered species breeding farms, hospitals, water and sewage treatment facilities and/or any number of projects that will make a real impact on humans and the environment.

One of the easiest ways to greatly improve the lives of people is to get them an inexpensive energy source, and the cheapest energy sources are carbon based.

The Little Ice Age was defined by starvation, plaque, hardship, social unrest, and violent revolution. People tend to move out of cold regions and into warm regions.

While catastrophic global warming is 100% pure speculation and something that has never occurred during the past 600 million years, even when CO2 was as high as 7,000 ppm. The likelihood of an Ice Age is almost a 100% certainty. Wind and solar power won’t work when covered in a mile of ice. Preparing for global warming leaves society completely unprepared for the far more likely and catastrophic event of an ice age.

This graphic says it all, we simply get far more food out of far less land with higher CO2. I would think that would he every environmentalist’s dream come true considering we are cutting down the rain forest to grow food/fuel crops.

The push for biofuels has resulted in the destruction of the rain-forest and other sensitive ecological areas. Oil and fracking are infinitely more environmentally friendly requiring an extremely small foot-print to deliver vast amounts of energy, whereas biofuels require plowing, planting, fertilizing, herbiciding, pesticiding million and millions of acres of land that could be used for far better uses. BTW, you have to burn huge amounts of petroleum-based diesel to run the tractors, trucks and production facilities required to produce the extremely inefficient biofuels like ethanol.

Evidence of Global Warming is not evidence man or CO2 is causing the warming.

Climate change is the norm. No one doubts that the climate is changing or that temperatures have increased since the end of the last ice age.

CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and never caused catastrophic warming.

Always tie the observation back the CO2’s mechanism to affect climate change. CO2’s only mechanism is through absorbing long wave IR (LWIR) between 13 and 18 microns. Yes, the oceans are warming BUT how does CO2 cause it? LWIR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm water.

The Climate Alarmist will almost certainly point to disappearing ARCTIC Ice, which has been declining, but global sea ice has not. How can CO2 cause more ice in the South and less ice in the North? Artic ice floats on water and is influenced by the ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures aren’t impacted by CO2.

Ice ages begin when CO2 is peaking, and end when CO2 is hitting a minimum. There is no mechanism by which CO2 could either end or start an ice age. Clearly, other major forces control the climate.

The costs of fighting the war on climate change far outweigh the benefits. The fortunes being spent would be far better spent on solving real problems.

The same people that told you we had a coming ice age, a 10 year supply of oil, that you can keep your doctor, that Obamacare would lower health care costs, that raising the minimum wage will create jobs, that a baby is a choice not a life, that ISIS/ISIL was the JR team, that giving Iran nuclear material will make us safer, that competition is bad for the public schools, that tough gun control laws lowers crimes, that “safe spaces” are appropriate for our Universities, painting cops as pigs is “art,” and that Trump had no chance of getting elected are the same people telling you that thecoming ice age,global warming, climate change has a “consensus” and is “settled” science.

Record high daytime temperatures are evidence of global warming, BUT NOT AGW, they are evidence that more incoming energy is reaching the earth. The GHG effect only traps OUTGOING LWIR, and has little or nothing to do with daytime temperatures.

An open source approach must be taken towards the global temperature reconstructions and climate models. Way too much power is entrusted into the hands of a very few, highly biased and unethical activists masquerading as “experts” and “scientists.” Transparency is needed to ensure accuracy and appropriateness of the temperature “adjustments” and factors and data used in the models. No open source temperature reconstruction would accept “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” and no open source model would put so much weighting on CO2, or accept the highly inaccurate and biased results of the current models.

Any research used to support a public policy that will result in spending taxpayer dollars must be independently verified using statistical methods like double-blind testing. The data and research conclusions reached in the field of climate “science” would never pass the rigors required by the FDA for drug approval. If Wall Street brokerages used the statistical methods and “adjustments” similar to the climate scientists the SEC would have them all behind bars. Bottom line, we need a watchdog to ensure the accuracy, validity, reproducibility, efficacy and that the benefits outweigh the cost to society.

Federal grants should be limited to Universities that demonstrate a staff inclusive of conservatives, and the research projects should be broken apart similar to building a new weapon system where no one researcher knows the big picture. The key is, the desired result can not be known to the researcher in order to ensure an objective conclusion. Financial conflict of interests must also be removed.

Fight back against the left-wing climate bullies, don’t support their causes or unAmerican boycotts, blacklisting and/or censorship efforts.

Please like, share on Facebook and Twitter, re-post, re-blog, and comment. Pass this on to your representative, school science teacher, skeptical friend, neighborhood climate alarmist and/or anyone that may have an interest. E-mail a link to 10 friends, local and national media, and include a link when commenting on articles. Edit Wikipedia pages on global warming and climate change to reference and link to this article. Help spread the word that there are legitimate arguments against the AGW/CAHG Theory. The climate alarmists win when they are allowed to stifle/avoid debate. This document provides a turn-key solution to starting and winning the debate. If you have a smoking gun of your own, please post it in the comments.

…the entire field of climate “science” appears to believe that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The IPCC models…[are]… a simple linear regression. …[and]…the predicted value will overestimate the actual observation and that the error will grow over time. That is exactly what has happened with 100% of the IPCC Models, 100%.

Really? I know these guys aren’t the best and the brightest and their attempts to manipulate the data are there for all to see and I thought I’d seen it all, but this is the 1st time I’ve seen this one.

Fantastic, I’ve been waiting for a site like this. Thanks for all the work to put this together. I had many pieces of the counter argument, but not in an organised format like this. This is great, we all seek the truth, hopefully it wont be too much longer before the truth wins out.

You have some duplicate items, for example Smoking Gun #21, talking points 3 and 19, and 5 and 6 are largely the same/should be combined. Smoking Gun #20, talking points 7 and 9 (may refer to different videos, but even so should be combined). Smoking Gun #3, talking points 7 and 10. You also have some items that have questionable significance to the discussion, like the “trace gas” comments, or the submarine CO2 concentration comments. You might add some meaning to the submarine CO2 level comments by pointing out how CO2 is not toxic to humans at levels many times the atmospheric level, which level could not ever be reached via human fossil fuel burning.

All in all, a fine laundry list of discussion points. I like some of the cartoons as well!

Many of us have been waiting for a resource that documents all of the so called climate change misinformation in one website. Thank you! I do wish the title of the article were not so polarizing. I would like to use your efforts to persuade those that may still be persuadable. Any title that includes “With A Liberal” will result in the information being dismissed as yet another right wing editorial. Your efforts here are evidence based reason.

Smoking gun 25: The energy in all absorbed radiation becomes thermalized. This and the plethora of absorb/emit bands of water vapor compared to non-condensing ghg explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

The numerous links are extremely helpful. However, there are a number of statements which are not referenced. The Alarmists pounce on such statements like a hungry fox on a mouse. Therefore, to my thinking, your collected information can be improved even further by referencing every statement which might not be well known or obvious.
For example, the statement, “The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns.” might be vigorously debated by claiming that such numbers are not true or cannot be demonstrated. In cases like these, we need a qualifying scientific reference.
I realize that I’m being “picky” and intentionally so as it’s my desire that everyone thinking skeptic be able to “cut the alarmists off at the knees”, within seconds.
Good work and a very commendable effort.
-Dale

If you are interested, here is a correction under “Smoking gun #4”.
You have “CO2 is 0.00004 or 0.04% of the atmosphere. Is it plausible that “activating” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere can actually result in a material temperature change?”
I believe that your decimal should be 0.0004.
FWIW

Would it be useful to go back to just a few powerful points?
1. Land based temperatures are not reliable because of changing stations, reduction of 15,000 stations to 5,000, large unmeasured areas, adjustment of data. Satellite records are much more accurate. Although they have only been available since 1978 this period showing no warming includes 25% (??) of all CO2 emitted by man.
2. Even the less reliable land based temperatures only show 0.8 degrees C since 1880.
3. Graph showing IPCC forecasts vs actual temperatures.
4. Chinese and Indian current and planned CO2 output vs Europe and USA. Even if the West closed down it would have no impact.

Can I suggest an additional approach? I know that science is open to debate so for each question there are answers, so warmists can defend just about any position. My tact is more from a logic, rational position.

Any hypothesis must be ironclad. If it isn’t ironclad it is wrong or needs to be tuned at the very least. So any warmist position that relies on consistent lines of evidence is wrong. A balloon with a hole bursts, an hypothesis with a hole does as well.

Logic > data > science thus a debate on science can lose to data and data can lose to logic. So I tend to stick to data and logic.

An example. Around 2000, satellite data and surface data when viewed together provided a clean and consistent view that supported each other. This is no longer the case. So which is true; satellite data has always been wrong and must be corrected or surface data has been altered incorrectly?

An example: Why has surface data, which has a error margin of around +/- 0.1 deg C changed so much that earlier error margins are well beyond current error margins?

An example: ECS is made up of known and unknown values. The known value, which is based on the basic physical property of CO2 is around 1.1 deg C. Thus the unknown portion is 0.4 to 3.4 deg C. Why do people believe that such a large and significant unknown can drive proper policy?

An Example: ECS was first estimated by Dr. Revelle back in the late 50’s early 60’s (from my reading). The very first estimate was 1.5 to 4.5 deg C per doubling. This estimate is exactly the same now. How is it that we have certainly now when we didn’t 50 years ago and what does the lack of progress on refining this significant unknown tell you about climate science?

(basically I question the process of science rather than the science itself)

Now going back to the balloon analogy and the fact that logic > data > science….. the case looks pretty clear to me that we have a lot of reason to doubt the consensus message and all of this is pretty basic stuff.

Thanks for your comprehensive survey of the science. Comment, since the alarmists apparrently have no interest or comprehension of science, there is apparently no rational way to communicate with them. There is a saying to the effect that knowledge can enter only the prepared mind.

Great post – I put it on my wife’s FB page.
I am a little concerned that you think logic and reason will win the day. I doubt it. I worked with a lot of engineers (I retired from aerospace engineering after 34.4 years). While our models had to be validated before we built anything, many (50%?) did not understand the concept or didn’t see the need for AGW. They agreed with the warmistas that the only reason ‘deniers’ want to see the raw data is so that they can refute the conclusions. Logic is not rational with some people. I don’t think many modern science classes discuss the scientific method.
AGW is a religion, to be taken on faith. Using science to refute it will only enrage these kind of people.

Thanks for the comment, and I unfortunately agree. This is more politics and science, so the truth and facts are really irrelevant. If the facts and truth matter, we would be having more intelligent conversations and studying things other than CO2. The singular focus on CO2 pretty much rules this out as a real science. Science falsifies things, it doesn’t set out to prove things.

Hi! It’s 12:00 am on Christmas morning so I haven’t been able to go through your very long post in detail. I shall do so when I get time, but I appreciate the huge effort you have put into this.

I do agree with most of the observations you have shared here. Permit me to share a few thoughts-

1. You don’t deny climate change as a phenomenon, but you are denying the role CO2 has on climate change and global temperature increase. Am I right?

2. Antarctic sea ice is not melting, I believe, due to the cold current circulating the continent and is a much larger control on the temperature there than CO2 can ever be (not able to find the source I read it from, I’ll share it as soon as I find it).

3. I agree with you that there are various other controls on global climate like Milankovich cycles, etc. CO2 increase cannot have a greater effect on global climate than these mechanisms.

4. However, it is possible that we may be at a point where the marginal increase in CO2 over the last 200 years has facilitated the receding of glaciers from the last ice age, by helping the positive feedback cycle.

5. While I do understand that CO2 cannot take the sole blame for the current climate scenario, as a person living in India I cannot deny the impacts I’m seeing with my eyes. Droughts are a regularity, the monsoon has weakened and the summers are crazy hot. The winters are colder, no doubt, but last for a very short period of time than before. So, what explanation do you think can justify this drastic change? (I’m genuinely asking the question and I’m keeping an open mind, here).

As an environmentalist with a geology background, I don’t see climate change as a threat. It is the norm. But climate change is a threat to the human way of life.
If agricultural systems are destroyed (as it will be for most part), humans will be decapitated.
And regardless of whether climate change exists or not, humans have atrociously destroyed the global ecosystems. If in the name of “climate action”, world governments are looking for ways to protect the ecosystems that are left, I wouldn’t mind jumping on that bandwagon in the quest to protect biodiversity from human actions.